the icing on the cake would be for him to not actually be as incompetent as he is portrayed, but simply playing the part of supervillain/public_enemy_number_one in order to unite the people and provide a foil for the "good" guys (and maybe use his influence to subtly make things better along the way)

Given how we have seen a softer side to him quite often, you might actually be onto something. Enough of his actions don't entirely add up, such as his decision to "elevate" Blue and Fuchsia to his staff over actual devil girls working at the club. Or his turning a blind eye to Fuchsia's escape despite suspecting for quite a while she was unsatisfied. Or other little things over the years that suggest hidden depths. I got the impression of someone who started out with strong ideals and dissatisfaction with the system who ultimately looked in the mirror one day to see his original worst enemy looking right back at him. This would actually fit with Sinfest's idealistic shift as a comic, and possibly Mr. Ishida's own private epiphanies.
Not to mention the larger picture of what happened once "geeks" had finally ultimately taken control of mainstream culture. Instead of changing it for the better, we just updated systemized abuse to be more technologically savvy and privacy-invading.

It would be really interesting if the D-man had silently done a Heel Face Turn behind closed doors, but has limited ability to alter the course he set without the patriarchy itself turning on him. Just as he had turned on his own creator. This could even explain his recent actions such as upping the ante with the drones, forcing the Sisterhood to step up their own game instead of comfortably resting on their laurels content with just bitching about the society he helped create.

the icing on the cake would be for him to not actually be as incompetent as he is portrayed, but simply playing the part of supervillain/public_enemy_number_one in order to unite the people and provide a foil for the "good" guys (and maybe use his influence to subtly make things better along the way)

the icing on the cake would be for him to not actually be as incompetent as he is portrayed, but simply playing the part of supervillain/public_enemy_number_one in order to unite the people and provide a foil for the "good" guys (and maybe use his influence to subtly make things better along the way)

Given how we have seen a softer side to him quite often, you might actually be onto something. Enough of his actions don't entirely add up, such as his decision to "elevate" Blue and Fuchsia to his staff over actual devil girls working at the club. Or his turning a blind eye to Fuchsia's escape despite suspecting for quite a while she was unsatisfied. Or other little things over the years that suggest hidden depths. I got the impression of someone who started out with strong ideals and dissatisfaction with the system who ultimately looked in the mirror one day to see his original worst enemy looking right back at him. This would actually fit with Sinfest's idealistic shift as a comic, and possibly Mr. Ishida's own private epiphanies.
Not to mention the larger picture of what happened once "geeks" had finally ultimately taken control of mainstream culture. Instead of changing it for the better, we just updated systemized abuse to be more technologically savvy and privacy-invading.

It would be really interesting if the D-man had silently done a Heel Face Turn behind closed doors, but has limited ability to alter the course he set without the patriarchy itself turning on him. Just as he had turned on his own creator. This could even explain his recent actions such as upping the ante with the drones, forcing the Sisterhood to step up their own game instead of comfortably resting on their laurels content with just bitching about the society he helped create.

In any case, HR, thanks for providing food for thought!

I'm saving this one for my list of "fantastically hopefully in the face of reality" file for when I have to make an argument.

He's the Devil. You know, the rest of that "D-man" name for him. Devil?
Considering his history is why Tat shows him as being more sympathetic and different early on. That doesn't mean that inside his heart now is a fluffy little hug just waiting to burst out.

He barely manages to care about his kid every once in awhile. I think it would be a stretch to say he's trapped in a system that won't let him out to spray hugs and glitter over people like the other angels.

OKSun you pretty much picked the most obnoxious possible way to respond to my hypothesis, then you turn around and speculate on why you're generally not well-liked on this forum.

Maybe you're just not in the habit of consuming media with any degree of sophistication to its writing, thus the subtext of what I was saying was invisible to you. In which case I'm just going to shake my head, because you've clearly missing out if you think the devil can't be complex or something even outright good. You're missing out on stories where there can be anti-villains or even villains who only see one way forward.

Just because it's possible the D-man isn't evil doesn't mean he can't still be a bad person who doesn't take proper care of his son, among other things. But I like the idea that perhaps he's an anger-fueled idealist under it all, it'd make him an interesting dark mirror to the Sisterhood as well.

OKSun you pretty much picked the most obnoxious possible way to respond to my hypothesis, then you turn around and speculate on why you're generally not well-liked on this forum.

Maybe you're just not in the habit of consuming media with any degree of sophistication to its writing, thus the subtext of what I was saying was invisible to you. In which case I'm just going to shake my head, because you've clearly missing out if you think the devil can't be complex or something even outright good. You're missing out on stories where there can be anti-villains or even villains who only see one way forward.

Just because it's possible the D-man isn't evil doesn't mean he can't still be a bad person who doesn't take proper care of his son, among other things. But I like the idea that perhaps he's an anger-fueled idealist under it all, it'd make him an interesting dark mirror to the Sisterhood as well.

Actually, after moving past the earlier threads and noticing that people seem bound and determined to see me instead of my comments afterwards, I figured I may as well be sarcastic when I see there's a good opportunity for it because it's not gaining me anything to avoid the sarcasm.

If I thought that avoiding the sarcasm and snark would buy me anything, I would, but the people that don't like me have made it pretty clear that there's no interest in changing their mind. Given that, why bother?

I have an interest in having my mind changed. But you respond by assuming that people aren't as deep as you or they just don't like you - and that's really annoying.

A lot of your responses also take this form.
"Actually, (giant wall of text about how you clearly should be understood as having said something else, which may or may not be different from what you've said before.)"

I do have some difficulty reading, following conversations and communicating, but when there's something there that is worth getting and the conversation makes some sense, But when you change positions or appear to be changing positions (because you didn't make sense the first time), then that's a lot of work to go through - and if you're just going to change it up again the next time you respond, it's not worth it._________________::crisis mode::

If I thought that avoiding the sarcasm and snark would buy me anything, I would, but the people that don't like me have made it pretty clear that there's no interest in changing their mind. Given that, why bother?

what about the people you were citing before, the ones who thought you made good points - you don't care now if you turn them off by snarking? how about people just joining the forum (they do it all the time) - you don't care what they think of you?

like stripey, a lot of us are open in having our minds, and even our opinions, changed. even about posters - there are more than a few people who made bad impressions when they first came on here, but earned people's respect (Leohan is one i am thinking of offhand). but we have to be convince, and screaming the same thing at us over and over is not convincing.

but see - that makes us fundamentally different from you. we are open to the notion that we might be mistaken, or even flat-out wrong, or just that we might not be arguing as effectively as we think. you seem to react very strongly to any disagreement, any suggestion that the way you see things isn't the absolute perfect way things should be seen. the people who end up being accepted are the ones who accept that (at the very least) other people's points might have validity. (it also helps if they have some sense of humor, and don't grate on everyone by being gratuitously rude)_________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

But I like the idea that perhaps he's an anger-fueled idealist under it all, it'd make him an interesting dark mirror to the Sisterhood as well.

well, if you go by milton, that's pretty much exactly what he is - an angel who rebelled against god, because he disagreed with god's vision of what the heirarchy of power should be. satan had a different vision, and he believed he had an equal right to his vision (or actually, i guess, greater, since he tried to overthrow god). but yeah, an idealist, and a pretty angry one. (of course, part of his problems from a human point of view was that he didn't rank humans at nearly the level god did, so...)

(in rereading this, i realized i should clarify: that's the poet john milton, who wrote paradise lost - not milton the devil-tech engineer. does give you some food for thought, though, as to why tat chose that name....)_________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

Last edited by mouse on Fri May 30, 2014 4:10 pm; edited 1 time in total

If I thought that avoiding the sarcasm and snark would buy me anything, I would, but the people that don't like me have made it pretty clear that there's no interest in changing their mind. Given that, why bother?

what about the people you were citing before, the ones who thought you made good points - you don't care now if you turn them off by snarking? how about people just joining the forum (they do it all the time) - you don't care what they think of you?

like stripey, a lot of us are open in having our minds, and even our opinions, changed. even about posters - there are more than a few people who made bad impressions when they first came on here, but earned people's respect (Leohan is one i am thinking of offhand). but we have to be convince, and screaming the same thing at us over and over is not convincing.

but see - that makes us fundamentally different from you. we are open to the notion that we might be mistaken, or even flat-out wrong, or just that we might not be arguing as effectively as we think. you seem to react very strongly to any disagreement, any suggestion that the way you see things isn't the absolute perfect way things should be seen. the people who end up being accepted are the ones who accept that (at the very least) other people's points might have validity. (it also helps if they have some sense of humor, and don't grate on everyone by being gratuitously rude)

I assume the people that agreed with me when I made good points will continue to agree with me when I make good points.

well, yeah, it's not like anyone here can actually stop you from looking like jerk.

by the way, i should have mentioned earlier - i am so convinced that stripey had it right in suggesting that Big D is going to make a push for more MLP eps that i am actually kind of hoping to see that tomorrow.

Big D against Big Toy! place your bets now!

(i'm betting that they give him a load of MLP plushies and he totally forgets why he came.)_________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter